Droit international général

Lydia Lundstedt and Erik Sinander (both  Stockholm University) have published Enhancing Critical Thinking in Private International Law in The Law Teacher.

The abstract reads:

This article describes and evaluates the reforms that the authors (as course managers) introduced to enhance critical thinking in the compulsory course on private international law in the Master of Laws programme at Stockholm University. The reforms were made in response to a decision by the Stockholm University Law Faculty Board to develop the “Stockholm Model” in an effort to strengthen students’ critical and scientific approach to law. The Stockholm Model aims to place law in a broader context so students can understand its relation to and impact on society. It also shifts the focus from an orthodox teaching of the doctrinal subject areas to facilitating the students’ ability to apply legal and other social science methods to analyse and develop the law. The article evaluates the success of the measures and reflects on what more can be done to improve critical thinking.

The article can be read here.

by José Antonio Briceño Laborí, Professor of Private International Law, Universidad Central de Venezuela y Universidad Católica Andrés Bello

In 2019 the Venezuelan Private International Law (hereinafter “PIL”) academic community made clear that, despite all the difficulties, it remains active and has the energy to expand its activities and undertake new challenges.

As an example of this we have, firstly, the different events in which our professors have participated and the diversity of topics developed by them, among which the following stand out:

• XI Latin American Arbitration Conference, Asunción, Paraguay, May 2019 (Luis Ernesto Rodríguez – How is tecnology impacting on arbitration?)
• Conferences for the 130th Anniversary of the Treaties of Montevideo of 1889, Montevideo, Uruguay, June 2019 (Eugenio Hernández-Bretón and Claudia Madrid Martínez – The recent experience of some South American countries not part of Montevideo Treaties in comparative perspective to them. The case of Venezuela).
• OAS XLVI Course on International Law. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 2019 (Javier Ochoa Muñoz – Effectiveness of foreign judgements and transnational access to justice. Reflections from global governance).
• The Role of Academia in Latin American Private Intertnational Law, Hamburg, Germany, September 2019 (Javier Ochoa Muñoz – The Legacy of Tatiana Maekelt in Venezuela and in the Region).
• XIII ASADIP Annual Conference 2019: Transnational Effectiveness of Law: Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, arbitral awards and other acts (Claudia Madrid Martínez – Transnational Efficacy of Foreign Judgments – Flexibilization of Requirements; Eugenio Hernández-Bretón – Transnational Effectiveness of Provisional Measures; and Luis Ernesto Rodríguez – New Singapore Convention and the execution of international agreements resulting from cross-border mediation).

However, this year’s three most important milestones for our academic community occurred on Venezuelan soil. Below we review each one in detail:

1. Celebration of the 20th Anniversary of the Venezuelan PIL Act

The Venezuelan PIL Act, the first autonomous legislative instrument on this subject in the continent, entered into force on February 6, 1999 after a six months vacatio legis (since it was enacted in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Venezuela on August 6, 1998).

This instrument has a long history, as its origins date back to the Draft Law on PIL Norms written by professors Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren, Joaquín Sánchez-Covisa and Roberto Goldschmidt in 1963 and revised in 1965. The Draft Law was rescued in 1995 on the occasion of the First National Meeting of PIL Professors. Its content was updated and finally a new version of the Draft Law was sent by the professors to the Ministry of Justice, which in turn sent it to the Congress, leading to its enactment (for an extensive overview of the history of the Venezuelan PIL Act and its content, see: Hernández-Bretón, Eugenio, Neues venezolanisches Gesetz über das Internationale Privatrecht, IPRax 1999, 194 (Heft 03); Parra-Aranguren, Gonzalo, The Venezuelan Act on Private International Law of 1998, Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. 1 1999, pp. 103-117; and B. de Maekelt, Tatiana, Das neue venezolanische Gesetz über Internationales Privatrecht, RabelsZ, Bd. 64, H. 2 (Mai 2000), pp. 299-344).

To celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Act, the Private International and Comparative Law Professorship of the Central University of Venezuela and the “Tatiana Maekelt” Institute of Law with the participation of 7 professors and 9 students of the Central University of Venezuela Private International and Comparative Law Master Program.

All the expositions revolved around the Venezuelan PIL Act, covering the topics of the system of sources, vested rights, ordre public, in rem rights, consumption contracts, punitive damages, jurisdiction matters, international labour relations, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements, transnational provisional measures and the relations between the Venezuelan PIL Act and international arbitration matters. The conference was both opened and closed by the professor Eugenio Hernández-Bretón with two contributions: “The Private International Law Act and the Venezuelan university” and “The ‘secret history’ of the Private International Law Act”.

• Private International and Comparative Law Master Program’s Yearbook

On the occasion of the XVIII National Meeting of Private International Law Professors, the Private International and Comparative Law Master’s Degree Program of the Central University of Venezuela launched its website and the first issue of its yearbook. This specialized publication was long overdue, particularly in the Master’s Program context which is focused on educating and training researchers and professors in the areas of Private International Law and Comparative Law with a strong theoretical foundation but with a practical sense of their fields. The Yearbook will allow professors, graduates, current students and visiting professors to share their views on the classic and current topics of Private International Law and Comparative Law.

This first issue included the first thesis submitted for a Master’s Degree on the institution of renvoi, four papers spanning International Procedural Law, electronic means of payment, cross-border know-how contracts and International Family Law, sixteen of the papers presented during the Commemoration of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Venezuelan Private International Law Act’s entry into force, and two collaborations by Guillermo Palao Moreno and Carlos Esplugues Mota, professors of Private International Law at the University of Valencia (Spain), that shows the relation of the Program with visiting professors that have truly nurtured the students’ vision of their area of knowledge.

The Call of Papers for the 2020 Edition of the Yearbook is now open. The deadline for the reception of contributions will be April 1st, 2020 and the expected date of publication is May 15th, 2020. All the information is available here. The author guidelines are available here. Scholars from all over the world are invited to contribute to the yearbook.

• Libro Homenaje al Profesor Eugenio Hernández-Bretón

On December 3rd, 2019 was launched a book to pay homage to Professor Eugenio Hernández-Bretón. Its magnitude (4 volumes, 110 articles and 3298) is a mirror of the person honored as we are talking about a highly productive and prolific lawyer, professor and researcher and, at the same time, one of the humblest human beings that can be known. He is truly one of the main reasons why the Venezuelan Private International Law professorship is held up to such a high standard.

The legacy of Professor Hernández-Bretón is recognized all over the work. Professor of Private International Law at the Central University of Venezuela, Catholic University Andrés Bello and Monteávila University (he is also the Dean of the Legal and Political Sciences of the latter), Member of the Venezuelan Political and Social Sciences Academy and its President through the celebration of the Academy’a centenary, the fifth Venezuelan to teach a course at The Hague Academy of International Law and a partner in a major law firm in Venezuela (where he has worked since his law school days) are just some of the highlights of his career.

The contributions collected for this book span the areas of Private International Law, Public International Law, Comparative Law, Arbitration, Foreign Investment, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Tax Law, Civil Law, Commercial Law, Labor Law, Procedural Law, Penal Law, General Theory of Law, Law & Economics and Law & Politics. The book closes with six studies on the honored.

The contributions of Private International Law take the entire first volume. It includes the following articles:

• Adriana Dreyzin de Klor – El Derecho internacional privado argentino aplicado a partir del nuevo Código Civil y Comercial (The Argentine Private International Law applied from the new Civil and Commercial Code).
• Alfredo Enrique Hernández Osorio – Objeto, contenido y características del Derecho internacional privado (Purpose, content and characteristics of Private International Law).
• Andrés Carrasquero Stolk – Trabajadores con elevado poder de negociación y Derecho applicable a sus contratos: no se justifica restricción a la autonomía de las partes (Workers with high bargaining power and applicable law to their contracts: no restriction to party autonomy is justified).
• Carlos E. Weffe H. – La norma de conflicto. Notas sobre el método en el Derecho internacional privado y en el Derecho internacional tributario (The conflict norm. Notes on the method in Private International Law and in International Tax Law).
• Cecilia Fresnedo de Aguirre – Acceso al derecho extranjero en materia civil y comercial: cooperación judicial y no judicial (Access to foreign law in civil and commercial matters: judicial and non-judicial cooperation).
• Claudia Madrid Martínez – El rol de las normas imperativas en la contratación internacional contemporánea (The role of peremptory norms in contemporary international contracting).
• Didier Opertti Badán – Reflexiones sobre gobernabilidad y Derecho internacional privado (Reflections on governance and Private International Law).
• Fred Aarons P. – Regulación del internet y el derecho a la protección de datos personales en el ámbito internacional (Internet regulation and the right to personal data protection at international level).
• Gerardo Javier Ulloa Bellorin – Interpretación del contrato: estudio comparativo entre los principios para los contratos comerciales internacionales del UNIDROIT y el derecho venezolano (Contract interpretation: comparative study between the UNIDROIT Principles on International Commercial Contracts and Venezuelan law).
• Gilberto Boutin I. – El recurso de casación en las diversas fuentes del Derecho internacional privado panameño (Cassational complaint in the various sources of Panamanian Private International Law).
• Guillermo Palao Moreno – La competencia judicial internacional en la nueva regulación europea en materia de régimen económico matrimonial y de efectos patrimoniales de las uniones registradas (International jurisdiction in the new European regulation on the economic matrimonial regime and the property effects of registered partnerships).
• Héctor Armando Jaime Martínez – Derecho internacional del trabajo (International Labor Law).
• Javier L. Ochoa Muñoz – El diálogo de las fuentes ¿un aporte del Derecho internacional privado a la teoría general del Derecho? (The dialogue of sources: a contribution from private international law to the general theory of law?
• Jorge Alberto Silva – Contenido de un curso de Derecho internacional regulatorio del proceso (Content of a course on international law regulating the process).
• José Antonio Briceño Laborí – La jurisdicción indirecta en la ley de derecho internacional privado.
• José Antonio Moreno Rodríguez – Los Principios Unidroit en el derecho paraguayo (The UNIDROT Principles in Paraguayan law).
• José Luis Marín Fuentes – ¿Puede existir una amenaza del Derecho uniforme frente al Derecho interno?: ¿podríamos hablar de una guerra anunciada? (Can there be a threat to national law from uniform law? Could we talk about an announced war?).
• Jürgen Samtleben – Cláusulas de jurisdicción y sumisión al foro en América Latina (Jurisdiction and submission clauses in Latin America).
• Lissette Romay Inciarte – Derecho procesal internacional. Proceso con elementos de extranjería (International Procedural Law. Trial with foreign elements).
• María Alejandra Ruíz – El reenvío en el ordenamiento jurídico venezolano (Renvoi in the Venezuelan legal system).
• María Mercedes Albornoz – La Conferencia de La Haya de Derecho Internacional Privado y el Derecho aplicable a los negocios internacionales (The Hague Conference on Private International Law and the applicable Law to International Business).
• María Victoria Márquez Olmos – Reflexiones sobre el tráfico internacional de niños y niñas ante la emigración forzada de venezolanos (Reflections on international child trafficking in the face of forced migration of Venezuelans).
• Mirian Rodríguez Reyes de Mezoa y Claudia Lugo Holmquist – Criterios atributivos de jurisdicción en el sistema venezolano de Derecho internacional privado en materia de títulos valores (Attributive criteria of jurisdiction in the Venezuelan system of Private International Law on securities trading matters).
• Nuria González Martín – Globalización familiar: nuevas estructuras para su estudio (Globalization of the family: new structures for its study).
• Peter Mankowski – A very special type of renvoi in contemporary Private International Law. Article 4 Ley de Derecho Internacional Privado of Venezuela in the light of recent developments.
• Ramón Escovar Alvarado – Régimen aplicable al pago de obligaciones en moneda extranjera (Regime applicable to the payment of obligations in foreign currency).
• Roberto Ruíz Díaz Labrano – El principio de autonomía de la voluntad y las relaciones contractuales (The party autonomy principle and contractual relations).
• Stefan Leible – De la regulación de la parte general del Derecho internacional privado en la Unión Europea (Regulation of the general part of Private International Law in the European Union).
• Symeon c. Symeonides – The Brussels I Regulation and third countries.
• Víctor Gregorio Garrido R. – Las relaciones funcionales entre el forum y el ius en el sistema venezolano de derecho internacional privado (The functional relations between forum and ius in the Venezuelan system of private international law.

As we see, the contributions are not just from Venezuelan scholars, but from important professors and researchers from Latin America, USA and Europe. All of them (as well as those included in the other three volumes) pay due homage to an admirable person by offering new ideas and insights in several areas of law and related sciences.

The book will be available for sale soon. Is a must have publication for anyone interested in Private International Law and Comparative Law.

As reported previously, the ECtHR was asked by the French Cour de cassation for an advisory opinion on the legal parentage of children born through surrogacy arrangement. In its answer, the Court considered that the right to respect for private life (article 8 of ECHR) requires States parties to provide a possibility of recognition of the child’s legal relationship with the intended mother. However, according to the Court, a State is not required, in order to achieve such recognition, to register the child’s birth certificate in its civil status registers. It also declared that adoption can serve as a means of recognizing the parent-child relationship.

The ECtHR’s opinion thus confirms the position reached by French courts: the Cour de cassation accepted to transcribe the birth certificate only when the intended father was also the biological father. Meanwhile, the non-biological parent could adopt the child (See for a confirmation ECtHR, C and E v. France, 12/12/2019 Application n°1462/18 and n°17348/18).

The ECtHR advisory opinion was requested during the trial for a review of a final decision in the Mennesson case. Although it is not compulsory, the Cour de cassation has chosen to comply with its recommendations (Ass. plén. 4 oct. 2019, n°10-19053). Referring to the advisory opinion, the court acknowledged that it had an obligation to provide a possibility to recognize the legal parent-child relationship with respect to the intended mother. According to the Cour de cassation, the mere fact that the child was born of a surrogate mother abroad did not in itself justify the refusal to recognize the filiation with the intended mother mentioned in the child’s birth certificate.

When it comes to the mean by which this recognition has be accomplished, the Cour de cassation recalled that the ECtHR said that the choice fell within the State’s margin of appreciation. Referring to the different means provided under French law to establish filiation, the Court considered that preference should be given to the means that allow the judge to exercise some control over the validity of the legal situation established abroad and to pay attention to the particular situation of the child. In its opinion, adoption is the most suitable way.

However, considering the specific situation of the Mennesson twins who had been involved in legal proceedings for over fifteen years, the Court admitted that neither an adoption nor an apparent status procedure were appropriate as both involve a judicial procedure that would take time. This would prolong the twins’ legal uncertainty regarding their identity and, as a consequence, infringe their right to respect for private life protected by article 8 ECHR. In this particular case, this would not comply with the conditions set by the ECtHR in its advisory opinion: “the procedure laid down by the domestic law to ensure that those means could be implemented promptly and effectively, in accordance with the child’s best interest”.

As a result and given the specific circumstances of the Mennessons’ situation, the Cour de cassation decided that the best means to comply with its obligation to recognize the legal relationship between the child and the intended mother was to transcribe the foreign birth certificate for both parents.

The Cour de cassation’s decision of October 2019 is not only the final act of the Mennesson case, but it also sets a modus operandi for future proceedings regarding legal parentage of children born trough surrogate arrangements: when it comes to the relation between the child and the intended mother, adoption is the most suitable means provided under domestic French law to establish filiation. When such an adoption is neither possible nor appropriate to the situation, judges resort to transcribing the foreign birth certificate mentioning the intended mother. Thus, adoption appears as the principle and transcription as the exception.

Oddly enough, the Court then took the first chance it got to reverse its solution and choose not to follow its own modus operandi.

By two decisions rendered on December 18th 2019 (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 18 déc. 2019, n°18-11815 and 18-12327), the Cour de cassation decided that the intended non-biological father must have its legal relationship with the child recognized too. However, it did not resort to adoption as a suitable means of establishing the legal relationship with the intended parent. Instead, the court held that the foreign birth certificate had to be transcribed for both parents, while no references were made to special circumstances which would have justified resorting to a transcription instead of an adoption or another means of establishing filiation.

The Court used a similar motivation to the one used in 2015 for the transcription of the birth certificate when the intended father is also the biological father. It considered that neither the fact that the child was born from a surrogate mother nor that the birth certificate established abroad mentioned a man as the intended father were obstacles to the transcription of the birth certificate as long that they complied with the admissibility conditions of article 47 of the Civil Code.

But while in 2015 the Court referred to the fact that the certificate “did not contain facts that did not correspond to reality”, which was one of the requirements of article 47, in 2019 this condition is no longer required.

Thus, it seems that the Cour de cassation is no longer reluctant to allow the full transcription of the foreign birth certificate of children born of surrogate arrangements. After years of constant refusal to transcribe the birth certificate for the non-biological parent, and just a few months after the ECtHR advisory opinion accepting adoption as a suitable means to legally recognize the parent-child relationship, this change of view was unexpected.

However, by applying the same treatment to both intended parents, biological and non-biological, this reversal of solution put into the spotlight the publicity function of the transcription into the French civil status register. As the Cour de cassation emphasized, a claim for the transcription of a birth certificate is different from a claim for the recognition or establishment of filiation. The transcription does not prevent later proceedings directed against the child-parent relationship.

But the end is still not near!  On January 24th, during the examination of the highly sensitive Law of Bioethics, the Sénat (the French Parliament’s upper house) adopted an article prohibiting the full transcription of the foreign birth certificates of children born trough surrogate arrangements. This provision is directly meant to “break” the Cour de cassation’s solution of December 18th 2019. The article will be discussed in front of the Assemblée nationale, the lower house, and the outcome of the final vote is uncertain.

The conflict over the legal parentage of children born trough surrogate arrangements is not over yet.  To be continued…

In [2020] EWHC 75 (QB) Lenkor Energy Trading v Irfan Iqbal Puri, Davison M rejected the ordre public arguments made by claimant against recognition of a money judgment of the Dubai First Instance Court.

Reflecting global understanding of ordre public, it is the judgment and not the underlying transaction upon which the judgment is based which must offend (here: English) public policy. That English law would or might have arrived at a different conclusion is not the point (Walker J in Omnium De Traitement Et De Valorisation v Hilmarton [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 222).

The ordre public arguments made, were (1) illegality, (2) impermissible piercing of the corporate veil and (3) penalty.

Re (1), the argument is that the underlying transaction is illegal. Master Davison acknowledged there are circumstances where an English court might enquire into the underlying transactions which gave rise to the judgment. However such court must do so with extreme caution and in the case at issue, defendant’s familiarity with Dubai and its laws argued against much intervention by the English courts.

On (2), the veil issue, submission was that defendant was being made personally liable for the debts of IPC Dubai, which was the relevant party (as guarantor) to the Tripartite Agreement and the holder of the account upon which the cheques were drawn. The cheques had not been presented or had been presented out of time – or there was at least an issue about that. The combination of these matters was, it was suggested, to impose an exorbitant liability on Mr Puri for sums which he had not agreed to guarantee – in contravention of established principles of English law.

Here, too, Davison M emphasised defendant’s familiarity with Dubai law. The case against Mr Puri in Dubai was resolved according to the rules which the laws of Dubai apply to Dubai companies and to individuals who write cheques on Dubai accounts. Dubai law may be different than English law on this point, but not repugnantly so.

Finally on (3) the sums in particular the interest charged were suggested to be exorbitant hence a form of unenforceable punitive damages. However, 9% interest is only 1% higher than the judgment debt rate in England and only ¼% higher than the current rate under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. (At 31) ‘In the light of this, to characterise the interest rate of 9% as amounting to a penalty is unrealistic.’

Geert.

The project on Gender and Private International Law (GaP) at the Hamburg Max Planck Institute, jointly organized by Ivana Isailovic and Ralf Michaels, will end the academic year with a bang! After the inaugural workshop (see Asthma Alouane’s report here) and three successful reading sessions in the fall, there will be a whole day workshop with three themes and six fabulous conveyors who will enable a truly crossdisciplinary event.
A call for applications to take part is here. Note that some travel and accommodation money is available for emergent scholars!

Thank you Pailler Ludovic for signalling the French Supreme Court’s judgment in 18-24.261  A and X v et al B and Y et al. The Court annulled the Court of Appeal’s (Versailles) decision which had accepted for recognition and enforcement a Cameroonian judgment in a Cameroonian-French adoption case.

Legal basis for the refusal is Article 34 of the relevant 1974 FR- Cam Treaty. Specically, the classic ordre public international hurdle to recognition and enforcement: ‘Elle ne contient rien de contraire à l’ordre public de l’Etat où elle est invoquée ou aux principes de droit public applicables dans cet Etat.’

The Supreme Court held that absence of Agrément does not infringe French ordre public international (Agrément is required by French adoption law and needs to be sought by the prospective adoptant). Yet fraus (fraude à la loi) might and needs to be properly examined, which the Court of Appeal had failed to do. Suggestion is made in the case that the adoption was engineered with the sole purpose of facilitating the French rights of residence of the adopting father’s partner, who is the mother of the children.

The case emphasises the relevance of fraus omnia corrumpit. Whether of course fraus will be proven in the new proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal remains to be seen.

Geert.

In Hong Ziyun v Chan Kwan Ming [2019] HKCFI 2125, Chan J at the end of August summed up the Hong Kong approach (as it is that of the common law) to consolidation of jurisdiction at 31: ‘the approach of the courts should be to favor resolution of all disputes associated with a transaction in one jurisdiction.’ That is the so-called one stop shop or one stop principle (whether or not hyphenated).

As Herbert Smith Freehills note, in a host of related loan documents only one of the documents contained an express jurisdiction clause (in favour of the court of Xiamen in Mainland China). The defendants applied for and obtained a stay of proceedings in Hong Kong in favour of Mainland China. HSF summarise the reasoning (the judgment itself is not too long and logically structured) helpfully as follows:

1. When there is no express jurisdiction clause, the applicable law is that which has the “closest and most real connection” with the transaction.
2. Most of the defendants’ business was in Mainland China. They also spent most of their time in Mainland China. On the evidence presented, the court was unable to place significant reliance on the permanent “residence” of any of the defendants in Hong Kong as showing any real or closest connection with Hong Kong.
3. The location of the debt, currency, and place of performance of the loans as well as the execution of and governing law clause in the SA all had a strong connection with Mainland China.

Geert.

I am no expert in all things insolvency and restructuring. I have an interest in it because of the conflict of laws issues (see the Insolvency Regulation) and the relationship with Brussels Ia. I am also interested in the labour law implications of corporate restructuring. These trigger highly relevant ethical, economic, and legal concerns.

Directive 2001/23 protects employees’ rights in the event of transfer of undertakings. The position of employees of course may be seen by potential investors as a hurdle to get onboard. Employees are inevitably on their cost cutting horizon. (For emperical Dutch research see Aalbers et al here and review in NL of same on Corporate Finance Lab).

The Directive exempts (Member States may provide otherwise) bankruptcies ‘proper’ and analogous insolvency proceedings. (They have to be under the management of what the Insolvency Regulation now calls an insolvency practitioner: an insolvency trustee, in other words). In C-126/16 Smallsteps, the Court held that pre-packs also known as ‘hushed bankruptcies’ do not qualify: since such a procedure is not ultimately aimed at liquidating the undertaking, the economic and social objectives it pursues are no explanation of, or justification for, the employees of the undertaking concerned losing the rights conferred on them by Directive 2001/23 (at 50).

Frederik De Leo reported here more extensively and with more knowledge of the issues, on the implications of Smallsteps, including implications for both the Dutch and the Belgian Statutes and proposals on pre-packs and corporate restructuring. On the Dutch implications, Robert van Moorsel had interesting insight here (in Dutch).

In Heiploeg, which was initiated before judgment in Smallsteps but is still being litigated (by Trade Unions), the Dutch Supreme Court /Hoge Raad is now essentially asked to apply the various conditions which the Court of Justice imposed for the bankruptcy exception of Directive 2001/13 to apply. Its procureur-generaal (essentially here fulfilling the role of an Advocate-General at the CJEU) opined in a well-documented Opinion on 1 November 2019 (apologies for late reporting: the Opinion traveled all sorts of corners in my briefcase) and proposes that the Supreme Court annul the lower court’s application of Smallsteps (which had found that the conditions for exception from the employees’ rights Directive did apply).

The Opinion is not I fear accessible to non-Dutch speakers – I am hoping proper experts will report more extensively once the Hoge Raad’s judgment is out.

Geert.

The Law Department at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) is pleased to host a Public Lecture by Visiting Professor Hannah Buxbaum, on ”Reasonableness’ Limits in Extraterritorial Regulation’.

About the topic:
Extraterritorial regulation has become commonplace. States frequently apply their laws to foreign conduct in order to protect local economic interests—and sometimes to advance shared interests, such as the protection of human rights. Are there limits to these exercises of state authority? If so, what is the source and content of those limits? This lecture will investigate the role of “reasonableness” as a limitation on extraterritorial regulation. It will focus in particular on developments in the United States, where the recently adopted Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law has reframed the role of international law in limiting the reach of national legislation.

About the speaker:
Professor Hannah Buxbaum is Vice President for International Affairs, the John E. Schiller Chair in Legal Ethics and a Professor of Law at Indiana University. Professor Buxbaum is an expert on cross-border regulatory litigation and extraterritoriality, U.S. securities and competition law, and foreign relations law. 

Thursday 30 January 2020 6:30pm to 8:00pm
Hosted by the LSE Department of Law
Chair: Dr. Jan Kleinheisterkamp (LSE)SUMEET VALRANI LECTURE THEATRE LSE Centre Buildings (CBG.1.01)

The Lecture is open to all; there is no need to register. For more information, please contact Jan Kleinheisterkamp (LSE) or Jacco Bomhoff (LSE).

By Dr Lukas Schmidt (PhD EBS Law School), law clerk (Rechtsreferendar) at the Regional Court of Wiesbaden, Germany

In cross-border insolvencies questions of international jurisdiction might arise either in relation to the opening of an insolvency proceeding as such, or – further down the road – in relation to proceedings deriving from already opened insolvency proceedings. In both cases the European Insolvency Regulation Recast (Regulation 2015/848) provides for answers: According to Article 3 of the Regulation the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor’s main interests is situated shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings. Article 6 of the Regulation provides that the courts in such Member States shall have jurisdiction as well for actions deriving directly from insolvency proceedings and closely linked with them. Both kind of decisions are to be automatically recognized in all other member states, either through Art. 19 (judgments opening insolvency proceedings) or through Art. 32 (other judgments).

Whereas Article 3 is also to be found in the old EIR (Regulation 1346/2000) as is Article 19 (Article 16) and Article 32 (Article 25), Article 6 is a new provision, however based without any doubt on the ECJ´s settled case law (Seagon, C-339/07 and Schmid, C-382/12) on the old EIR. Still on the old regulation, but with effect also for Art. 6 and 32 EIR, the ECJ has now specified in the case UB v. VA and others (C-493-18) the scope and the exclusive nature of the vis attractiva concursus as (now) laid down in Art. 6 of the EIR.

Some facts are necessary to understand the case:

The insolvent debtor UB, a Dutch citizen, owned an apartment and a property complex in France. Although his assets had been frozen by an English court he and his sister VA signed an acknowledgement of debt by which UB acknowledged owing VA the sum of EUR 500 000 in respect of various loans. UB undertook to repay that sum by 22 August 2017 and subsequently mortgaged, in favour of VA, the apartment and the property complex which he owned in France. In March 2010 he had sold the apartment to Tiger, a company founded by VA. On 10 May 2011 insolvency proceedings were opened against UB in the United Kingdom by the Croydon County Court. The Croydon County Court authorised the insolvency administrator, to bring an action before the courts in France in order to obtain a ruling that the sale of the properties and the mortgages granted over those properties were avoidable under the relevant United Kingdom bankruptcy law provisions. The insolvency administrator made use of this authorisation and succeeded before the French Regional Court and the Court of Appeal. However, the Court of Cassation referred the question of international jurisdiction of the French courts (and its recognition) to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

By answering the first two referred questions the ECJ has made clear – rather not surprising – that an action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy appointed by a court of the Member State within the territory of which the insolvency proceedings were opened seeking a declaration that the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State and the mortgage granted over it are ineffective as against the general body of creditors falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the first Member State.

The ECJ has pointed out that for determining whether actions derive directly from insolvency proceedings not the procedural context of the action is decisive, but its legal basis (the trustee asked the French courts to rule on a declaration of ineffectiveness rather than on an action to set the transactions aside).

Equally insignificant for international jurisdiction to hear an action for the restitution of immovable property to the bankruptcy estate is where those assets are located. The court underlines that the objective of improving the efficiency and speed of cross-border insolvency proceedings is only consistent with concentrating all the actions directly related to the insolvency proceedings before the courts of the Member State within the territory of which those proceedings were opened.

More intriguing and not yet subject to the ECJ’s case law is the question whether a court can confer its international jurisdiction according to Art. 6 EIR. Eventually, this is what the Croydon Country Court did by authorizing the administrator to bring an action before the French courts in order to obtain a ruling that UB´s deals regarding the French properties were avoidable transactions under the relevant United Kingdom bankruptcy law provisions. The referring Court of Cassation therefore asked in his third question if the UK court’s decision authorizing the insolvency administrator to bring an action before the French courts could be classified as a judgment concerning the course of insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Article 25 (now Article 32), which may, on that basis, be recognised with no further formalities, pursuant to that article.

The court’s answer to this question is in line with its decision in Wiemer & Trachte v. Tadzher (C-296/17) in which it already confirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened for set aside actions. Hence, the ECJ refused the UK court’s approach quite quickly stating that Article 25 (now 32) EIR cannot be interpreted in such a way as to call into question the said exclusive nature of the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the insolvency proceedings were opened to hear actions which derive directly from those proceedings and which are closely connected with them. According to the ECJ Article 25 EIR merely allows for the possibility that the courts of a Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened may also hear and determine an action which derives directly from those proceedings and is closely connected with them, whether that be the court which opened the insolvency proceedings under Article 3(1), or another court of that same Member State having territorial and substantive jurisdiction.

The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters will form the object of a conference (in English) scheduled to take place on 23 April 2020 at the Catholic University of Milan.

Speakers include Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Elena D’Alessandro (University of Turin), Francisco Garcimartín Alférez (Autonomous University of Madrid), Marko Jovanovic (University of Belgrade), Antonio Leandro (University of Bari) and Matthias Weller (University of Bonn). Fausto Pocar (University of Milan) will chair the conference while Luca Radicati di Brozolo (Catholic University of Milan) will offer some concluding remarks.

The event benefits from the support of EAPIL, the European Association of Private International Law, and of the Interest Group on Private International Law of SIDI, the Italian Society of International and EU Law.

Attendance is free, but those wishing to attend are required to register by 10 April 2020 through the conference website. In view of the limited seating capacity of the room where the conference will take place, early registration is recommended.

For more information: pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

A flag on anti anti-suit. Steve Ross reports here on the Paris Court of First Instance (Tribunal de Grande Instance) judgment in RG 19/59311 IPCom v Lenovo /Motorola granting a preliminary injunction.  IPCOM GmbH & Co. KG is an intellectual property rights licensing and technology R&D company. Lenovo/Motorola a telecommunications company. As Steve writes, the French Court held that it had jurisdiction over the case with regard to a patent infringement claim and ordered Lenovo to withdraw the motion for an anti-suit injunction which that company had brought before the US District Court of the Northern District of California in so far as it concerns the French part of the patent.

Steve notes (I have not read the actual judgment) that ‘according to the French Court, the international French public order (ordre public) does not recognise the validity of an anti-suit injunction, except where its purpose is to enforce a contractual jurisdiction clause or an arbitral clause. Under all other circumstances, anti-suit injunction proceedings have the effect of indirectly disregarding the exclusive power of each sovereign state to freely determine the international jurisdictional competence of their courts.’

Peter Bert also reports last week a German anti anti-suit injunction at the Courts in Munchen, also for IPR cases.

For progress in the US anti-suit (one ‘anti’ only) application see order here.

Juve Patent report (as does Peter) that the High Court, too, has issued a (partial) anti anti-suit in the case however I have not been able to locate the judgment.

Note that continental courts (see in the French case) finding that anti-suit in general infringes ordre public is an important instruction viz future relationships with UK court orders following Brexit (should the UK not follow EU civil procedure).

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.1.

Speaker: Professor Alex Mills (Faculty of Laws, UCL)

Chair: Professor Campbell McLachlan QC (Victoria University Wellington)

Date and time: 06 February 2020, 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm

Location: Bentham House, UCL Laws, London, WC1H 0EG, United Kingdom

The boundary between public and private legal relations at the international level has become increasingly fluid. State actors engage internationally in private commercial activity, while the privatisation of traditional governmental functions has led to private actors exercising ostensibly public authority, and accelerated the development of a hybridised public-private international investment law. Privatisation as a general phenomenon is much debated, although there has been relatively little focus on the governmental functions which are perhaps of most interest to lawyers – law making, law enforcement, and dispute resolution. This lecture will argue that modern legal developments in the context of private law and cross-border private legal relations can be usefully analysed as two distinct forms of privatisation. First, privatisation of the allocative functions of public and private international law, in respect of both institutional and substantive aspects of regulation. Second, privatisation of the institutional and substantive regulation of private legal relationships themselves, through arbitration and the recognition of non-state law. Analysing these developments through the lens of privatisation highlights a number of important critical questions which deserve greater consideration.

Alex Mills is Professor of Public and Private International Law in the Faculty of Laws, University College London. His research encompasses a range of foundational issues across public and private international law, as well as international investment law and commercial arbitration. He has degrees in Philosophy and Law from the University of Sydney, and an LLM and PhD (awarded the Yorke Prize) from the University of Cambridge, where he also taught before joining UCL. His publications include ‘Party Autonomy in Private International Law’ (CUP, 2018), ‘The Confluence of Public and Private International Law’ (CUP, 2009), and (co-authored) ‘Cheshire North and Fawcett’s Private International Law’ (OUP, 2017). He was awarded the American Society of International Law’s Private International Law Prize in 2010, has Directed Studies in Private International Law at the Hague Academy of International Law, and is a member of Blackstone Chambers Academic Advisory Panel and the Editorial Board of the International and Comparative Law Quarterly.

The organisors request you to consult for more information and to register for the event here.

The event is free to attend. The following URL provides full information and registration details: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-development-of-private-international-law-in-the-uk-post-brexit-tickets-89779245139

Date: Friday 28th February 2020, 9am-5pm.

Location: Queen Mary University of London, 67-69 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Room 3.1, London, WC2A 3JB

This is the first of four public AHRC workshops on Private International Law after Brexit from global, European, Commonwealth and intra-UK perspectives.

About the event

With Brexit having taken place on 31 January 2020 this workshop comes at an ideal time to focus on how private international law in the UK should develop once the implementation period for the UK leaving the EU has finished (which under UK law should be on 31 December 2020). Several eminent speakers will address the issue from four key perspectives:

• Global – Professor Trevor Hartley LSE
• Commonwealth – Professor David McClean, University of Sheffield
• EU/EEA – Michael Wilderspin – Commission Legal Service
• Intra-UK – Dr Kirsty Hood QC, Faculty of Advocates, Scotland

There will be a discussant for each perspective and then plenty of time for questions and comments after each main speaker.

The workshop will also hear from the organisers of this AHRC Research Network:

• Professor Paul Beaumont, University of Stirling
• Dr Mihail Danov, University of Exeter (who will report on his English pilot study)

Furthermore some empirical research findings will be shared by:

• Professor Sophia Tang, University of Newcastle
• Dr Jayne Holliday, University of Stirling

Those interested in advising on the development of this Research Network are welcome to stay for an informal meeting to be held at the end of the workshop between 5.10 and 6pm.

This event is free and open to all but registration is required because spaces are limited.

Professor Paul Beaumont and Dr Mihail Danov would like to thank Queen Mary University of London for their wonderful support by hosting the first three workshops and also AHRC for funding the Research Network.

Future Events

The second and third workshop of this series will be held on Wednesday 1st and Thursday 2nd April 2020 in the same location, Queen Mary University of London, Room 3.1, 67-69 Lincoln’s Inn Field, London and will focus on the future development of private international law in the UK in relation to commercial law (April 1) and family law (April 2).

The final workshop will be held on Thursday 2nd July 2020. This will be held as a joint venture with the Journal of Private International Law and will be held at Reed Smith, Broadgate Tower, 20 Primrose Street, EC2A 2RS

Tickets for these events will be available shortly.

[2019] EWHC 3568 (Comm) Enka Insaat ve Sanayi v OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” et al. is the very swift follow-up to [2019] EWHC 2729 (Comm) which I review here. I flag the case mostly for:

• at 8, Baker J siding with Males J (and myself) per Nori Holding, that West Tankers is still good authority following Brussels Ia despite Wathelet AG’s suggestions in Gazprom;
• the brief reference at 9, as to whether under Rome I injunctive relief for threat of contractual breach is covered by lex fori or lex contractus. Baker J concludes that issue simply by reminding us that Rome I does not apply to arbitration agreements;
• At 47 ff the discussion of choice of law in spite of no express clause having been included to that effect. Specifically, with reference to Sulamerica, whether choice of seat may imply choice of law.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.1. 

by Matthias Lehmann

Smart contracts and the conflict of laws is a widely discussed topic today (see for instance the post by Giesela Rühl). A new contribution to this debate comes from ISDA, the International Swaps and Derivatives, in collaboration with the Singapore Academy of Law and leading law firms. Also involved is the provider of an existing smart contract platform (Corda), which guarantees the paper’s practical relevance. The analysis focuses on a potential smart derivative contract to be implemented on Corda. 

The authors of the paper take the view that a court in Singapore and the UK would have little difficulties in determining the law governing such a contract – it would simply be the one chosen in the derivatives master agreement. The same goes for the choice of the competent court. In this context, it is important to note that only B2B transactions are considered, with no consumer contracts being involved. The authors also see little risk for the intervention of public policy rules.

Collateralised derivative transactions, which are of utmost practical importance, are more problematic to the extent that the collateral is governed by the lex rei sitae. But the paper also sees a way out here: The collateral could be represented by a token (through so-called tokenisation). Given that tokens have no real geographic location, the law applicable to the token could be determined again by a choice of the parties. 

The paper even suggests an innovative way to avoid the need for enforcement: The parties could agree that the “notary” of the platform must implement any judgment rendered by the chosen court. In this way, the need to apply for cross-border recognition and enforcement in the country in which the platform is established would fall away. 

Whether this proposal works in practice remains to be seen. One may reasonably fret that the platform will not enjoy complete immunity from the country in which it is established. As long as the courts of this country are liberal, there is however little reason for fear. The Singapore High Court has already shown its readiness to extending property protection to the holders of cryptocurrencies. The country could thus provide a safe haven for the operation of a smart derivatives platform, but that does not exclude the continuing power of its courts to intervene and the possible application of national law, e.g. in case of an insolvency of the platform provider.

By Tasha Joseph

Teams are invited to register for the PAX Moot, Asser Round 2020. Registration will be possible until March 30th. However we do advise teams to register as soon as possible. The registration fee is 100 Euros per team.

The moot court competition comprises a written round and oral round. For the written round each team will be required to submit a written assignment as requested by the case (for details, see Rules and Procedures). The oral round will be scheduled as a 2 full-day event on 28-29 May 2020, preceded by a welcoming event for all teams on 27 May (evening). The first day of the competition (general rounds) will be held at the University of Antwerp. On the second day, the participating teams will be invited to the EU Commission in Brussels, where the semi-finals and final rounds will be held.

This year, we have invited Alex Layton QC, a leading specialist in private international law, to draft the case and be a member of the final panel of the oral round.

The organising team hopes that this year’s competition will attract many teams from EU Member States and beyond! Besides the collective prizes for best team and best written submission, one member of the final winning team will be given the “Best Speaker Award” of the moot, and our partner, Herbert Smith Freehills, has graciously invited the next recipient of that award for an internship in its Paris office!

For further information please visit www.paxmoot.com, or email us at info@paxmoot.com.

Sincerely,

PAX Moot Team

The Conference represents the final event of the JUDGTRUST Project (2018-2020), funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union (2014-2020). The objective of the Project is to identify best practices and to provide guidelines in the interpretation and application of Regulation 1215/2012 (BI-bis). The JUDGTRUST Project is coordinated by the T.M.C. Asser Instituut and carried out in partnership with the University of Hamburg, the University of Antwerp and the Internationaal Juridisch Instituut.

The Conference will host panels on, inter alia, the scope of application, relationship with other instruments, rules on jurisdiction, provisional measures, as well as enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments. Additionally, the key findings from the National Reports of the EU Member States will be presented. It aims to bring together academics, policy makers and legal practitioners. It will take place on Thursday 24 September 2020 at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague. 

More information will be provided on the Project website (https://www.asser.nl/judgtrust) shortly.

In C‑641/18 Szpunar AG opined on Tuesday and notes that the request of the referring court brings to mind the current debate about the influence of human rights on private international law. It seeks to ascertain whether and, if so, to what extent the scope of ‘civil and commercial’ in the Brussels Ia Regulation may be influenced by the interest in ensuring access to the courts, a right guaranteed by Article 47 Charter.

(The case itself is subject to Brussels I which did not yet include ‘acta iure imperii’. As the AG notes at 56, this is merely a clarification following CJEU interpretation of the previous concept.

Relatives of the victims, along with survivors of the sinking of the Al Salam Boccaccio ’98, a ship sailing under the flag of the Republic of Panama, which happened in 2006 on the Red Sea and caused the loss of more than a thousand lives, have brought an action before the District Court, Genoa against the companies Rina SpA et Ente Registro Italiano Navale. Claimants argue that the defendant’s certification and classification activities, the decisions they took and the instructions they gave, are to blame for the ship’s lack of stability and its lack of safety at sea, which are the causes of its sinking.

Defendants plead immunity from jurisdiction. They state that they are being sued in respect of certification and classification activities which they carried out as delegates of a foreign sovereign State, namely the Republic of Panama. They argue activities in question were a manifestation of the sovereign power of the foreign State and the defendants carried them out on behalf of and in the interests of that State.

The AG first of all reviews how the principle of customary international law concerning the jurisdictional immunity of States relates to the scope ratione materiae of Brussels Ia. He starts his analysis noting that in the absence of codification at international level (international conventions on the issue not having met with great success), the principle concerning the jurisdictional immunity of States remains to a large extent governed by customary international law.

There is little use in quoting large sections of the Opinion verbatim so please do refer to the actual text: the AG opines (referring ia to C-154/11 Mahamdia) that it is unnecessary to refer to the principle of customary international law concerning State immunity from jurisdiction when considering the scope ratione materiae of Brussels Ia. Those principles he suggests do play a role when it comes to enforcing any exercise of such jurisdiction against the will of the party concerned.

At 46: ‘the distinction between disputes which are civil or commercial matters and those which are not must be drawn by reference to the independent criteria of EU law identified by the Court in its case-law. Consequently, an act performed in the exercise of State authority (acta iure imperii) from the perspective of the law relating to immunity, is not necessarily the same as an act performed in the exercise of State authority according to the independent criteria of EU law.’ (The latter as readers of the blog will know, are not always clearly expressed; see ia my review of Buak).

In the second place, the AG then considers whether an action for damages brought against private-law entities concerning their classification and/or certification activities falls within the scope of BIa. At 83, following extensive review of the case-law (almost all of which I also reviewed on the blog and for earlier cases, in Chapter 2 of the Handbook), the AG opines that neither the fact that the acts in question were performed on behalf of and in the interests of the delegating State nor the possibility of the State’s incurring liability for harm caused by those acts, in itself conclusively characterises those acts as ones performed in the exercise of powers falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals. 814/79 Rüffer also makes a non-conclusive appearance.

At 95 then follows the core of the factual assessment: defendants’ role is limited to carrying out checks in accordance with a pre-defined regulatory framework. If, following the revocation of a certificate, a ship is no longer able to sail, that is because of the sanction which, as the defendants admitted at the hearing, is imposed by Panama law. Not acta iure imperii – the issue falls under Brussels Ia.

Finally, must as a result of a plea of immunity from jurisdiction a national court decline to exercise the jurisdiction which it ordinarily derives from the Regulation? In a section which will be interesting to public international lawyers, the AG reviews international and EU law (particularly Directive 2009/15) and concludes that there is no principle in international law which grants immunity to certification agencies in cases such as the one at hand.

To complete the analysis, the AG opines that should the Court disagree with his views on immunity, the national court’s views on jurisdiction would not be impacted by the right to court guarantees of the Charter, for there is no suggestion at all that the victims would not have proper access to Panamian courts for their action.

Note of course that the Opinion does not address lex causae.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.16.1.1.